Sameolddoctor, emotions and feelings have no place in political discussions. Your desire to feel safe shouldn't cancel others' right to feel safe. Most Americans think the government's concern should be the budget deficit not guns.
Paradox, are you a self designated moderator of what figures in political discussions?
i don't see any justified rebuke in your post. politics may well flow in the direction of peoples feelings and emotions. of course, there is the possibility of abusing this, as we well know. in any case, major political tectonic shifts are always stirred by acute mass emotion and feelings.
Tammuz I'm just saying this because there are rules of argument such as not attacking person's character but his/her argument, not misinterpreting or exaggerating one's argument in order to make them easier to attack or claim that because something is popular it must be true etc. etc. If someone is attacking me like a rabid dog or displaying knee jerk reactions I'll stop talking to them and this is not productive.
Also, I advise you to simplify your language, you need to adjust your language so that the average person can understand what you're talking about. Right now you come off as a language snob.
and how does bringing up my language and calling me a language snob address any argument whatsoever? perhaps you should call yourself a self contradiction not a paradox. a paradox fronts more intelligence. better yet, call yourself an irrelevance as thats what you're spewing.
"someone is attacking me like a rabid dog"
if this is your uncivil point of view on people, then no wonder you're nonchalant about bearing arms.
I'm personally having a hard time understanding your sentences and I'm not the only one who is having that trouble. If you don't want to be understood then it is your problem.
""someone is attacking me like a rabid dog"
the original quote started with if. "if someone is attacking me like a rabid dog". I've had many instances where I was called an asshole, I was told to fuck off and other many rude things even though I don't go around insulting people. I was referring to that.
"if this is your uncivil point of view on people, then no wonder you're nonchalant about bearing arms."
Again deliberately misinterpreting one's argument in order to make them easier to be attacked. As I told you before I've never acquired any guns but it is not up to me or you to decide how others should protect themselves. People are right to be scared after all the NDAA, Patriot Act, the TSA harassments, the poverty and mental instability of others. Besides, there is no way to enforce gun regulations. Criminals in particular will continue breaking the law, and because of the government’s refusal to actually tackle the socioeconomic factors driving violence and its insistence on instead punishing law abiding citizens will lead to even more chaos.
"I'm personally having a hard time understanding your sentences and I'm not the only one who is having that trouble. If you don't want to be understood then it is your problem."
no, you also called me a language snob. you did not, for example, entertain the thought that this is that english is not my first or indeed my "second language" - i don't write colloquially. furthermore, it is not "my" problem that you can't understand simply because, for my person, its not that essential whether you do or you don't. if i shoot in the dark, so be it. i am not here to give or receive remarks on language skills. understand so far?
also, i'm not misinterperating. calling a human, be s/he aggessive a rabid dog is just not civil. he tells you to fuck off, you call him dog...are you really any different? the way you are responding to posts is a display of knee jerk reactions and unqualified vitriol.
i do agree that the whole picture needs to be addressed. but as i mentioned before (you are perhaps beyond sensing subtlety), the whole picture is built up of many smaller ones; this is one. ban those killing machines. address the economy (or rather just change it), stop this stop that...etc. why not? its not impossible. its an evidence of impotence and not a valid criticism of infeasibility to state that its not possible. an infitinte sandwiching of greed and impotence actually.
Tammuz, "come off as" does not equal to "be". In other words you coming off as a language snob doesn't mean you're a snob, it is just that you appear to be one.
"calling a human, be s/he aggessive a rabid dog is just not civil"
What I said was "If someone is attacking me like a rabid dog" so I didn't call anyone a rabid dog, I called on their attitude. It is ridiculous that I'm lecturing you on English grammar.
You try to portray me as a violent person by misquoting and misconstruing my sentences so that you can justify your view on gun control by implying gun rights supporters are all violent.
Addressing the economy should be the first priority yet the government failed at it for years. It is obvious that with few exceptions no one in Washington cares about the American people. They are all bought by the corporations, they work for their self interests and it is possible they fear a backlash from people but the fear goes both ways. How can you trust a government who spies on and kills its own citizens with drones?
"you can justify your view on gun control by implying gun rights supporters are all violent."
i never claimed that; you build assumptions on assumptions. i think they are misguided but not necessarily (all) violent. you have been arguing with your fictions.
but when you say "you come across as a language snob", have the guts to own up to the ironic usage of the language. its a very anglosaxonic temperament actually. "its quite warm today"...not "its hot". you're not so clever to switch your cards without being noticed so quit it.
i don't see what your pleasure in talking down to people like that is. you're on your high steed fighting phantoms. no, we're all are not saying all gun rights supporters are violent. but you certainly are deeming us all presumptious enough to hold that view. who is the snob who generalizes for everyone? who is telling others what is allowed to go into political discussions and what isn't? who bashes others for their usage of language? that makes you ugly. or in your language ...you come across as being ugly.
I didn't bash you, I just said you needed to simplify your language because English is my second language too and unlike you I don't excel at academic language.
i suspected that -owing to one of your posts a long time ago. are you iranian?
thefore its not "my" problem as purported by you but rather yours. instead of advising me, perhaps you would be in a better position to advise yourself in ameliorating your 'academic language'. good luck
Not sure what failure your are referring to? Were any of these mass shooters doing it under the direction and authorization of a specific church or religious body? The church of hatred? And since you think religous leaders should preach about trigger locks and safeties, maybe you are missing the point of spiritual formation because that's not what could have prevented the killings. The only failure that is ocurring is looking for hope and change in the State and not looking at changing ourselves and our society's values. Even if you don't believe in God or have faith in anything, you can't deny the natural law that is inscribed in all humans about what is right and wrong. Killing is wrong. Why don't we address that instead of continuing to ignore that problem and think this can be prevented by taking the weapon away. One of the executive orders yesterday was to direct the CDC to study "violent video games". Why are we not studying the overall culture that has made it acceptable to take pleasure in violence?
People are right to be scared after all the NDAA, Patriot Act, the TSA harassments, the poverty and mental instability of others. Besides, there is no way to enforce gun regulations. Criminals in particular will continue breaking the law, and because of the government’s refusal to actually tackle the socioeconomic factors driving violence and its insistence on instead punishing law abiding citizens will lead to even more chaos
Why are we not studying the overall culture that has made it acceptable to take pleasure in violence?
why dosn't the gov't lead by example and stop all the warlord imperialism. Why is it ok when the gov't drops bombs on cities...Disarment? I would 100% support the complete disarment of the entire world including all nukes wmd's drones ect.......However this is an unlikely senario, and so as long as the gov't has weapons so shall the people. Absolutely ridiculous how these people order violence on a daily basis and then try to tell the citizens that we are violent and need to be disarmed. Fucking hypocracy!!! Why dosent the gov't tell israel to disarm? why don't they stop selling arms to other nations? Its like a drug dealer telling me to stop smoking pot...."you are destroying society with all that pot smoking.....excuse me for a second while I drop some pills and sell some crack"
I like guns. I have a shotgun and I live in Canada.
It's a LONG painful process here to get a license, but I think necessary. Say what you want about Canada but it's one thing that I think we do right. It bugs me when people liken Canada to "evil socialist" values that limit your freedom. We are very free people, we just have more regulations.
decent people are decent people regardless of their faith. here's the thing i have against religion. first, let's accept that god said 'thou shall not kill' and jesus said 'love one another' and a significant theme in the new testament is spreading peace and love. second, let's assume 'religion' refers to christianity due to this topic focusing on gun control legislation in america where christianity is the dominant religion. now let's look at westboro baptist. they're spreading hate, which is very much opposed to the values they seem to profess. they talk about what god hates and show the world how much they hate stuff. what they're doing is bad for my community and i can't condone their activities - which they're doing in the name of organized religion. second, in regards to gun control, you can look at david koresh. in the name of religion he collected a bunch of guns with the intent of causing harm to government officials or anyone else that interfered with whatever fantasies he had, and on top of that he was a pedophile and hurt kids. in the name of religion. this is harmful to my community and my country. i have nothing against faith communities composed of decent people, but those religious people were not and are not decent.
if you're a decent person that's great, regardless of your faith (in my opinion). however, you suggested violence is caused in part by my country being evil due to roe v. wade. i don't think my country is evil and i don't like being considered evil. i sincerely try to be a decent person myself, and i think that's true of most people in my community. second, you suggested there is a line which the government should not cross with regards to rights, and when that line is crossed i should get a gun. i believe this implies a gun is somehow a tool that can be used to reform government. i believe david koresh believed this, and it's why he stockpiled firearms in his compound. you never expanded on how that tool should be used, or who it should be used against. calling people evil because of a different understanding of the soul or whatever, and then saying we should arm ourselves while suggesting an intent to cause harm to others, is not spreading peace and love. that's spreading hate and violence. as indicated with the westboro and branch davidian examples, religion is sometimes used as a forum to teach people to spread hate and violence instead of peace and love. that is the failure of faith communities in my opinion, and some of your remarks suggest you could be heading down that path. please remember hating people, hurting people, and killing people are not christian values.
natural law is a thing, but i'm not sure i agree with the relevance you're giving it. it's like, natural law says i can steal your stuff. government says i cannot. i had to give up my natural right to steal your stuff so we could live together in a community. i am still capable of stealing your stuff, but it seems to me you're suggesting if i don't get caught then it's ok because it's my natural right and government was unable to exact justice.
we should be looking to the state for hope and change. in america, the state is us. the government is composed of people pulled out from the governed and elected by the governed. obama is president because i voted for him. cantor is the majority leader in the house because people with a different opinion than me voted for him. i disagree with those people, and i would like to convince those people to reconsider their position, but i have not considered the option of causing them harm. our government reflects us as a people. when our government fails, it isn't an entity separate from us that failed, it is us.
as i understand it, the kid that killed the kids in newtown used his mother's guns for the shootings. he took her guns, killed her, then went to the school to kill the kids. if the boy's mother had secured those weapons, the incident would have been avoided. securing weapons like that, especially with children around or mentally disturbed people that might use those weapons to cause harm, is absolutely a question of right v. wrong. you should not own firearms if you're incapable of handling that responsibility. if your church is going to take it upon themselves to teach morality and right v. wrong, that sort of thing should be included. anything that teaches intolerance should not be included.
i feel discussions on how to address gun control, or if it should be addressed at all, should be limited to gun control. i understand there are other problems in our society including lead poisoning and poverty that can contribute to crime. i think it would be best if we as a community were able to alleviate those problems, but it derails the discussion at hand. there isn't any gun control legislation that will solve all problems. criminals will be able to get guns no matter what gets passed. however, there is still a possibility that we can elect leaders to pass legislation that will help at least a little bit. saying we should entirely drop gun control as a topic due to the fact lead poisoning is still a problem takes away the opportunity to pass legislation that could help a little bit.
i did not see video games mentioned on the list of 23 orders i read.
Paradox, the budget deficit is on no ones minds, its just FOX news that makes you think so. By saying that emotions have no place in politics, you have just proven yourself to be a money grubbing soulless shit.
Again, I will not make my statements as convoluted as tammuz, because after all I am an emotional human, but I would love to hear why emotions and notions of safety have no place in politics.
sameolddoctor, I don't watch the Fox News because it is not a credible news source. I actually see them as an entertainment source.
Of course emotions have some place in politics but in political arguments they're not useful. Actually if you think about it we're all angry but often times people say x should be allowed or should be banned because it is how they FEEL instead of showing credible sources.
I'll ignore the rest of your rant since it looks like it was written by a 6 year old.
- 323 murders were committed with rifles
- 356 murders were committed with shotguns
In comparison:
- 1,694 murders were committed with knives and other cutting instruments and
- 726 murders happened with the killers' bare hands.
Also I'd like you to define what an assault weapon is. I agree it sounds so dangerous to be carried around but what exactly is an assault weapon?
i appreciate maestro's link. i was not clear on how video games were involved and that helped clear it up.
parad0xx89, i think it would be safe to assume assault weapons will be defined the same as the 1994 law. if a new bill is passed, the definition could possibly be expanded. i think bloomberg has come out against armor piercing bullets, so i would guess he would try to have certain types of ammunition included.
A 2004 Department of Justice study (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf ) says: "Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."
The term assault weapon was invented after 1989. When the legislators introduced the AWB bill in 1993 they had to define what an assault weapon was first because the machine guns were already banned. So what they called as "assault weapons" work the same way as semi-automatic weapons but in terms of appearance they look like machine guns, that is the only difference: the appearance. For example the AR-15 works the same way as a ranch rifle but it has a pistol grip and a detachable magazine that causes the weapon to look scary.
According to Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act many guns that Americans possess today, the semi-automatic guns are classified as "assault weapons". They fire one round each time the trigger is pulled, they are actually the modern day muskets. Rifles and shotguns are also included in this. Machine guns have already been banned since 1986. The term assault weapon is being broadened to increase gun control. Now you admitted that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon", there are only semi-automatic weapons that are used by millions of law abiding Americans and you want to take them all away.
i think the current push for new firearm regulation is intended to address the mass shooting events like sandy hook, the aurora theater, gabby giffords, etc. the targets in these events are typically random. while in the case of gabby giffords or Accent Signage Systems and similar events there was an initial target or event but the gunman was shooting random bystanders for no reason. the pdf report you linked was written in 2004, so it was not able to consider these events.
the assault weapon ban did not ban all semi-automatic weapons. i think the really useful part was limiting a clip to 10 rounds. that is helpful because it ultimately reduces the rate of fire. it won't stop people from shooting each other or anything, but if someone is going to walk into a school or a theater and start shooting everyone they see anyway, reducing the rate of fire can help reduce the amount of damage inflicted.
the usefulness of an ar-15 is really limited to the gun owner thinking they're cool (imho, there are of course some motivations i have not been exposed to). if there is a practical necessity for owning a firearm, there is probably a better model more suited to your purpose. letting people stockpile guns because they want to pretend they're in the military, or a paramilitary organization, or a well regulated militia, when in fact they're not in any of those things, kind of feels unsafe to me.
letting people stockpile guns because they want to pretend they're in the military, or a paramilitary organization, or a well regulated militia, when in fact they're not in any of those things, kind of feels unsafe to me.
letting people? isn't this supposed to be a democracy? you know that thing we kill people to preserve in other countries
Yes - this is a democracy. And, in a democracy the views of the majority should prevail over time.
Let's look at some numbers. The NRA has somewhere between 3.1 and 4.0 million members. There are approximately 90 million gun owners in the US, of which not all embrace the NRA's views. That leaves like what - 221 million people who don't own guns and who don't see the need to be armed to the teeth.
Why is the NRA and a relatively small proportion of the gun toting public driving this debate and scaring the s**t out of our elected representatives? It's time for more sensible heads to prevail. It's time for more sensible heads to make the Congress concerned about THEIR views.
Have you written your representatives in the Congress today? I have.
democracy just means we vote to elect people to government. being free is a different thing. we can and often do elect people to limit our freedom (that can be called 'consent of the governed'). and we obviously have limitations on freedom, such as we are not allowed to kill each other for no reason or steal from each other. we are also not allowed to own fully automatic weapons. there is already a line there, this is a question of where we want that line. differing opinions certainly exist and they are welcome to the discussion. i just think you sound like you're drawing an ideological line rather than a practical one.
of course if you think people should be allowed to own any weapon they want, your opinion is just as valid as mine. i think it's not worth the risk associated with how many people a crazy person can kill when shooting up a public venue.
Jeepers, paradox, way to cherry pick your data! That link you posted shows that all firearms account for almost 70% of all murders. Am I wrong that handgun purchases will also be subject to background checks under this proposal?
Donna, the purpose I showed the data was to show that assault weapons cause 0.6% of the total murders.
"Am I wrong that handgun purchases will also be subject to background checks under this proposal?"
They can do all the background checks as they like. Sandy Hook killer got the gun from his mom who went through a background check.
Meanwhile I hear crickets chirping when it comes to the Big Pharma who makes money by giving antidepressant and other drugs to kids and spends that money on Washington bribing the politicians. How much do you think the pharmaceutical industry bribe the politicians to be kept out of the shooting stories.
Sooo much hipocracy it makes me sick. The same shit head elite politicians that support the murderous regime israel bombing the gaza strip people and killing countless kids, the same assholes that got us into iraq are telling the american people that we are the problem and that we should disarm law abiding citizens to reduce violence. All I'm saying is that if the so called "leaders" want to be taken seriously they should lead by example and denounce all violence even when it concerns "brown people" from far away places...Imo kids are kids...and killing is unexceptable.
i just think you sound like you're drawing an ideological line rather than a practical one.
It is a completely practical to understand that prohibition of anything always creates an underground market. It is also completely logical to assume that criminals are not concerned with gun laws. I think the majority of the people out there that support the gun ban in NY are dillusional. They are looking for a solution to a problem that cannot be solved with a law. This problem can only be solved with a complete cultural revolution. A cultural movement that favors people over things, community over individualism, family over success, true moral awareness over shallow religious rhetoric.......This is how we solve the violence problem (along with better mental health availability, and education) Simple solutions are being proposed because our politicians are simple minded people who are trying to appeal to other simple minded people so that they can get votes. We need to engage experts on sociology, psychology, anthropology, and stop looking to these greasy business men for solutions. If you want to understand the root cause of a drug epidemic you first look at the family structure, then the community, then the overall culture of the times........Banning drugs and trying to police the problem is not only ineffective, but also dangerous because it creates a false sense of "doing something" and allows the real deeper social problems to persist. Same mentality that is associated with green washing, in that it allows people to feel good about their lifestyle while ignoring the real devestation being cause by their way of life..... Preserving our liberties is the most important thing that we can do, and yes, I understand that these liberties can be dangerous in the hands of a mentally and socially broken society, however we should never take the easy way out and limit liberty, but rather we should work to fix the social decay in order to preserve both our social order and our humanity.
jla-x, you misunderstand why these folks are pushing so hard for these gun laws (and why they were so thoroughly pre-prepared and ready to pounce as soon as a mass-shooting tragedy presented itself). It isn't because they will do anything about crime (they won't). It's also not about democracy, because they can't get what they want through democratic means and are forced to resort to things like issuing a flurry of executive orders. It's not about making society safer, because they aren't interested in talking about anything that might actually have a chance of achieving that in reality.
It's about social control and undermining their hated class enemies (mostly: white proles and rural hicks, who are big gun nuts but also quite law-abiding as a general rule) in favor of their own high-low coalition (the low part of that coalition being the primary source of the problem they're in such a bother about...now isn't THAT convenient). It's a status game. They're not interested in civilization, community, peace, and order. They are interested in power. That alone explains why they insist so strongly on all these rules applying to everyone except themselves. Once you understand that, the scales will fall from your eyes.
I get that...but we "the people" are concerned with the violence problem. What I'm saying is that we need to stop looking to these puppets for solutions. Yes, the NDAA act, this gun ban, etc....are all means to maintain power and control. They see some problems on the horizon that are going to threaten their ability to maintain control, and they are laying the groundwork before it's too late. dollar collapse? ww3? peak oil? Everything is planned and strategic and nothing is ever about what they present it as. By the people looking to these assholes for "solutions" we just feed that power lust. "Please control us....we need you.."
Another myth being propigated by the media is that the "white proles and rural hicks, who are big gun nuts" are leading this resistance. I know many NYers from many ethnicities that are very libertarian minded people. Judging by my facebook page....I would say that 50% of my friends have been pretty vocal about this ban. At least 50% of them are non-white. The media likes to make this into a class/race/right/left issue but it is really not. Most people are in the middle and hate limitations on liberty. There are alot of people I know, including a black cop, who is very against this ban for both practical and ideological reasons....
jla, i'll concede that isn't necessarily an ideological post and your opposition to gun control comes from the cost of sacrificing liberties being too high for any benefits from further gun control legislation (being that you believe there are no benefits to such legislation). would you also be proponent of relaxing the existing legislation, like making fully automatic weapons available, or something like that? or is your position that the line is fine where it's at? also, it sounds like you do support some of obama's recommendations for education and research into the causes of gun violence as well as making mental health treatment more widely available through obamacare? perhaps you are only opposed to some parts of the recommendations that go too far rather than opposing everything obama suggests because you don't like democrats?
gwharton, i think people like obama are upset that a lot of kids died in an elementary school shooting and alot of other innocent people have died because of similar mass shootings in the past few years. it's kind of hard to explain to a sociopath why someone would be upset by that, but i assure you there is not a conspiracy theory about recommending gun control legislation. if, for example, the assault weapon ban was renewed, or stricter background checks on legitimate firearm purchases, then democrats and republicans would be held to the same laws. those proposals don't favor poor minorities in urban settings over poor white people in rural settings.
They come across as batshit insane. I don't think often about guns. Just not my thing. But other people (it seems) think about guns every single day of their lives. And then when you hear a story, they just come across as completely insane.
that you and gwharton (and others of course) can spin together an entire sociology manifesto based off a simple statement ("I like guns") is totally nuts to me.
" it's kind of hard to explain to a sociopath why someone would be upset by that, but i assure you there is not a conspiracy theory about recommending gun control legislation. "
curtkram, Obama's ability to convince a lot of people that he's sincere about "doing something" is why he's President (well...one of the reasons - racial catharsis is the other). He may even really be sincere. He has been characterized by people who should know as "the world's leading Ecumenical Protestant" and he really seems to believe what he says about all this stuff. It's hard to tell, because whether he's sincere or not ("If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made"), it consistently gains him and his supporters power regardless of how well any of it makes sense or actually works. That's the first clue to what's really being pursued here.
Obama and his cronies are long-time students of the ideology of power, which in its modern incarnation as Modern Universalism via the hybridization of liberal Ecumenical Protestantism and Post-modernist Marxism, has become the regnant orthodoxy of our society and age. That orthodoxy is not specific to either political faction in our system. It dominates both of them entirely, though with differing emphasis and effectiveness (the Democrats much more consistent about it, and thus running circles around their opponents for the better part of a hundred years).
The Overton Window is continuously and monotonically shifting in the direction they want it to. It has been for a very, very long time. That should be another clue as to what's really going on here.
"Obama and his cronies are long-time students of the ideology of power, which in its modern incarnation as Modern Universalism via the hybridization of liberal Ecumenical Protestantism and Post-modernist Marxism"
Yup. You are definitively insane. And have a gun. Great.
paradox, when I was in grad school I could walk into Meier at 2am and buy a bottle of vodka, a gun, and a box of ammunition and walk right out into the night with them. I don't give a damn what kind of firearm it is, limiting that kind of access to them can't possibly *not* produce a drop in gun murders.
"I'll ignore the rest of your rant since it looks like it was written by a 6 year old."
does not = you're a kid. See my exchange with tammuz above. Apparently some people on this site need grammar lessons..
Donna, The Clinton ban on assault weapons did noting to stop gun violence. Connecticut has one of the toughest gun laws in the country right behind NY and NJ. That being said I support background checks for all individuals who want to acquire firearms.
jla, i'll concede that isn't necessarily an ideological post and your opposition to gun control comes from the cost of sacrificing liberties being too high for any benefits from further gun control legislation (being that you believe there are no benefits to such legislation). would you also be proponent of relaxing the existing legislation, like making fully automatic weapons available, or something like that? or is your position that the line is fine where it's at? also, it sounds like you do support some of obama's recommendations for education and research into the causes of gun violence as well as making mental health treatment more widely available through obamacare? perhaps you are only opposed to some parts of the recommendations that go too far rather than opposing everything obama suggests because you don't like democrats?
I do support many of obama's ideas. I am not a conservative and have never voted republican in my entire life. I do disagree with obama on many issues, especially the ndaa act, his on-going support of the military industrial complex, his corporate bailouts, his support of the fascist federal reserve.....but I voted for obama because on one hand there was no other choice, and on the other, I feel that he really does care about people, and I do feel that at times he supports more liberty (like gay marriage) Neo-cons are not for more liberty. They are only for their own liberties and those that benefit their donors. I agree with ron paul about 60% of the time, Obama about 40%......I'm a libratarian leaning moderate I guess.
I support universal healthcare, obama care is too corporate friendly imo but better than nothing I guess. I do support many social programs that are beneficial to society as well. I am with him on education, the slight tax increases on the rich, the dams and bridges, etc... These things do not limit our liberty or our freedom in any way. They do not affect the meaning or the integrity of the constitution or our civil liberties. I will never support facist banking bailouts no matter what the consequences may be, nor will I ever support anything that limits our civil liberty or power balance with the gov't like this gun control bill.... I am opposed to this ban for both ideological and practical reasons.
As for fully automatic weapons, atom bombs, tanks, F-16's......No we have to draw the line somewhere and I do not think that we need to make machine guns legal. Recent history has shown that rifles are sufficient tools for resistance. I'm 99% certain that we will never need to revolt, I'm less certain about my kids generation, and much less certain about my future grandkids generation......So the real issue for me is about the preservation of a free society for future generations.
They come across as batshit insane. I don't think often about guns. Just not my thing. But other people (it seems) think about guns every single day of their lives. And then when you hear a story, they just come across as completely insane.
that you and gwharton (and others of course) can spin together an entire sociology manifesto based off a simple statement ("I like guns") is totally nuts to me.
Rusty, you are misunderstanding my position. I do not like or own guns. I don't like the NRA or any other lobby. I hate violence too. I don't even kill bugs. However I do support the 2nd amendment because I feel that it is necessary to maintain a power balance in society. My support of the 2nd amendment may contradict my hate for violence, however I also hate racism, but would support the 1st amendment rights of a racist. It is a constitutional issue for me not a love for guns...
bit off topic, but your "Ecumenical Protestant" notion made me pause a minute. how can obama be both an Ecumenical Protestant and a muslim at the same time?
Obama Sr. may have been muslim, and Soetoro might have been, but Obama Jr. is pure Ecumenical Protestant all the way. That's how his mother and (especially) grandparents raised him, and pretty much every single thing that comes out of his mouth confirms that.
You may find this link interesting. It's an interview with Prof. David Hollinger at Berkeley (and President of the Organization of American Historians) about the success of Ecumenical Protestantism in dominating our culture and policy institutions in the late 20th century.
Hollinger, whose research specialty is American intellectual history, has written extensively on this subject. He notes that the primary ideological conflict in the United States today is fundamentally religious rather than purely political: Ecumenism vs. Evangelicalism in an Anglo-American Protestant context. Ecumenism won most of the battles in that conflict pretty decisively, starting back in the 1940s, but in the process mutated away from its religious roots into something much more secular. Evangelicalism has remained more overtly religious. In rough terms, the current partisan schism between Blue/Democrat and Red/Republican follows the Ecumenical/Evangelical split quite closely in many cases.
The secularization of Ecumenical Protestantism coincided with the decline of the mainline churches themselves, but also with the hybridization of that worldview with post-modern Marxism (then on the run from its historical associations with Communism and retrenching as a cultural movement) plus the tremendous success of the implementation of its policy programs and assumption of secular power in the United States post-WW2.
Who fucking knew I'd side with Scalia, but his thoroughness in Heller, although at times difficult to read, does manage to get the point across.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
I do not like or own guns. I don't like the NRA or any other lobby. I hate violence too. I don't even kill bugs. However I do support the 2nd amendment because I feel that it is necessary to maintain a power balance in society. My support of the 2nd amendment may contradict my hate for violence, however I also hate racism, but would support the 1st amendment rights of a racist. It is a constitutional issue for me not a love for guns...
Architects and Guns-Who has one-who wants one
Sameolddoctor, emotions and feelings have no place in political discussions. Your desire to feel safe shouldn't cancel others' right to feel safe. Most Americans think the government's concern should be the budget deficit not guns.
Paradox, are you a self designated moderator of what figures in political discussions?
i don't see any justified rebuke in your post. politics may well flow in the direction of peoples feelings and emotions. of course, there is the possibility of abusing this, as we well know. in any case, major political tectonic shifts are always stirred by acute mass emotion and feelings.
Tammuz I'm just saying this because there are rules of argument such as not attacking person's character but his/her argument, not misinterpreting or exaggerating one's argument in order to make them easier to attack or claim that because something is popular it must be true etc. etc. If someone is attacking me like a rabid dog or displaying knee jerk reactions I'll stop talking to them and this is not productive.
Also, I advise you to simplify your language, you need to adjust your language so that the average person can understand what you're talking about. Right now you come off as a language snob.
and how does bringing up my language and calling me a language snob address any argument whatsoever? perhaps you should call yourself a self contradiction not a paradox. a paradox fronts more intelligence. better yet, call yourself an irrelevance as thats what you're spewing.
"someone is attacking me like a rabid dog"
if this is your uncivil point of view on people, then no wonder you're nonchalant about bearing arms.
I'm personally having a hard time understanding your sentences and I'm not the only one who is having that trouble. If you don't want to be understood then it is your problem.
""someone is attacking me like a rabid dog"
the original quote started with if. "if someone is attacking me like a rabid dog". I've had many instances where I was called an asshole, I was told to fuck off and other many rude things even though I don't go around insulting people. I was referring to that.
"if this is your uncivil point of view on people, then no wonder you're nonchalant about bearing arms."
Again deliberately misinterpreting one's argument in order to make them easier to be attacked. As I told you before I've never acquired any guns but it is not up to me or you to decide how others should protect themselves. People are right to be scared after all the NDAA, Patriot Act, the TSA harassments, the poverty and mental instability of others. Besides, there is no way to enforce gun regulations. Criminals in particular will continue breaking the law, and because of the government’s refusal to actually tackle the socioeconomic factors driving violence and its insistence on instead punishing law abiding citizens will lead to even more chaos.
"I'm personally having a hard time understanding your sentences and I'm not the only one who is having that trouble. If you don't want to be understood then it is your problem."
no, you also called me a language snob. you did not, for example, entertain the thought that this is that english is not my first or indeed my "second language" - i don't write colloquially. furthermore, it is not "my" problem that you can't understand simply because, for my person, its not that essential whether you do or you don't. if i shoot in the dark, so be it. i am not here to give or receive remarks on language skills. understand so far?
also, i'm not misinterperating. calling a human, be s/he aggessive a rabid dog is just not civil. he tells you to fuck off, you call him dog...are you really any different? the way you are responding to posts is a display of knee jerk reactions and unqualified vitriol.
i do agree that the whole picture needs to be addressed. but as i mentioned before (you are perhaps beyond sensing subtlety), the whole picture is built up of many smaller ones; this is one. ban those killing machines. address the economy (or rather just change it), stop this stop that...etc. why not? its not impossible. its an evidence of impotence and not a valid criticism of infeasibility to state that its not possible. an infitinte sandwiching of greed and impotence actually.
Tammuz, "come off as" does not equal to "be". In other words you coming off as a language snob doesn't mean you're a snob, it is just that you appear to be one.
"calling a human, be s/he aggessive a rabid dog is just not civil"
What I said was "If someone is attacking me like a rabid dog" so I didn't call anyone a rabid dog, I called on their attitude. It is ridiculous that I'm lecturing you on English grammar.
You try to portray me as a violent person by misquoting and misconstruing my sentences so that you can justify your view on gun control by implying gun rights supporters are all violent.
Addressing the economy should be the first priority yet the government failed at it for years. It is obvious that with few exceptions no one in Washington cares about the American people. They are all bought by the corporations, they work for their self interests and it is possible they fear a backlash from people but the fear goes both ways. How can you trust a government who spies on and kills its own citizens with drones?
"you can justify your view on gun control by implying gun rights supporters are all violent."
i never claimed that; you build assumptions on assumptions. i think they are misguided but not necessarily (all) violent. you have been arguing with your fictions.
but when you say "you come across as a language snob", have the guts to own up to the ironic usage of the language. its a very anglosaxonic temperament actually. "its quite warm today"...not "its hot". you're not so clever to switch your cards without being noticed so quit it.
i don't see what your pleasure in talking down to people like that is. you're on your high steed fighting phantoms. no, we're all are not saying all gun rights supporters are violent. but you certainly are deeming us all presumptious enough to hold that view. who is the snob who generalizes for everyone? who is telling others what is allowed to go into political discussions and what isn't? who bashes others for their usage of language? that makes you ugly. or in your language ...you come across as being ugly.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/come+across+as
I didn't bash you, I just said you needed to simplify your language because English is my second language too and unlike you I don't excel at academic language.
i suspected that -owing to one of your posts a long time ago. are you iranian?
thefore its not "my" problem as purported by you but rather yours. instead of advising me, perhaps you would be in a better position to advise yourself in ameliorating your 'academic language'. good luck
I'm Turkish. If I ever ignore your posts in the future don't get upset, it will probably because I didn't understand it.
you're very welcome to. and i wish you happy ignorance, paradox efendi/hanim.
curtkram
Not sure what failure your are referring to? Were any of these mass shooters doing it under the direction and authorization of a specific church or religious body? The church of hatred? And since you think religous leaders should preach about trigger locks and safeties, maybe you are missing the point of spiritual formation because that's not what could have prevented the killings. The only failure that is ocurring is looking for hope and change in the State and not looking at changing ourselves and our society's values. Even if you don't believe in God or have faith in anything, you can't deny the natural law that is inscribed in all humans about what is right and wrong. Killing is wrong. Why don't we address that instead of continuing to ignore that problem and think this can be prevented by taking the weapon away. One of the executive orders yesterday was to direct the CDC to study "violent video games". Why are we not studying the overall culture that has made it acceptable to take pleasure in violence?
"acceptable to take pleasure in violence"
Or is it simply catharsis?
People are right to be scared after all the NDAA, Patriot Act, the TSA harassments, the poverty and mental instability of others. Besides, there is no way to enforce gun regulations. Criminals in particular will continue breaking the law, and because of the government’s refusal to actually tackle the socioeconomic factors driving violence and its insistence on instead punishing law abiding citizens will lead to even more chaos
exactly!
Why are we not studying the overall culture that has made it acceptable to take pleasure in violence?
why dosn't the gov't lead by example and stop all the warlord imperialism. Why is it ok when the gov't drops bombs on cities...Disarment? I would 100% support the complete disarment of the entire world including all nukes wmd's drones ect.......However this is an unlikely senario, and so as long as the gov't has weapons so shall the people. Absolutely ridiculous how these people order violence on a daily basis and then try to tell the citizens that we are violent and need to be disarmed. Fucking hypocracy!!! Why dosent the gov't tell israel to disarm? why don't they stop selling arms to other nations? Its like a drug dealer telling me to stop smoking pot...."you are destroying society with all that pot smoking.....excuse me for a second while I drop some pills and sell some crack"
I like guns. I have a shotgun and I live in Canada.
It's a LONG painful process here to get a license, but I think necessary. Say what you want about Canada but it's one thing that I think we do right. It bugs me when people liken Canada to "evil socialist" values that limit your freedom. We are very free people, we just have more regulations.
America, I love you, but take notes.
decent people are decent people regardless of their faith. here's the thing i have against religion. first, let's accept that god said 'thou shall not kill' and jesus said 'love one another' and a significant theme in the new testament is spreading peace and love. second, let's assume 'religion' refers to christianity due to this topic focusing on gun control legislation in america where christianity is the dominant religion. now let's look at westboro baptist. they're spreading hate, which is very much opposed to the values they seem to profess. they talk about what god hates and show the world how much they hate stuff. what they're doing is bad for my community and i can't condone their activities - which they're doing in the name of organized religion. second, in regards to gun control, you can look at david koresh. in the name of religion he collected a bunch of guns with the intent of causing harm to government officials or anyone else that interfered with whatever fantasies he had, and on top of that he was a pedophile and hurt kids. in the name of religion. this is harmful to my community and my country. i have nothing against faith communities composed of decent people, but those religious people were not and are not decent.
if you're a decent person that's great, regardless of your faith (in my opinion). however, you suggested violence is caused in part by my country being evil due to roe v. wade. i don't think my country is evil and i don't like being considered evil. i sincerely try to be a decent person myself, and i think that's true of most people in my community. second, you suggested there is a line which the government should not cross with regards to rights, and when that line is crossed i should get a gun. i believe this implies a gun is somehow a tool that can be used to reform government. i believe david koresh believed this, and it's why he stockpiled firearms in his compound. you never expanded on how that tool should be used, or who it should be used against. calling people evil because of a different understanding of the soul or whatever, and then saying we should arm ourselves while suggesting an intent to cause harm to others, is not spreading peace and love. that's spreading hate and violence. as indicated with the westboro and branch davidian examples, religion is sometimes used as a forum to teach people to spread hate and violence instead of peace and love. that is the failure of faith communities in my opinion, and some of your remarks suggest you could be heading down that path. please remember hating people, hurting people, and killing people are not christian values.
natural law is a thing, but i'm not sure i agree with the relevance you're giving it. it's like, natural law says i can steal your stuff. government says i cannot. i had to give up my natural right to steal your stuff so we could live together in a community. i am still capable of stealing your stuff, but it seems to me you're suggesting if i don't get caught then it's ok because it's my natural right and government was unable to exact justice.
we should be looking to the state for hope and change. in america, the state is us. the government is composed of people pulled out from the governed and elected by the governed. obama is president because i voted for him. cantor is the majority leader in the house because people with a different opinion than me voted for him. i disagree with those people, and i would like to convince those people to reconsider their position, but i have not considered the option of causing them harm. our government reflects us as a people. when our government fails, it isn't an entity separate from us that failed, it is us.
as i understand it, the kid that killed the kids in newtown used his mother's guns for the shootings. he took her guns, killed her, then went to the school to kill the kids. if the boy's mother had secured those weapons, the incident would have been avoided. securing weapons like that, especially with children around or mentally disturbed people that might use those weapons to cause harm, is absolutely a question of right v. wrong. you should not own firearms if you're incapable of handling that responsibility. if your church is going to take it upon themselves to teach morality and right v. wrong, that sort of thing should be included. anything that teaches intolerance should not be included.
i feel discussions on how to address gun control, or if it should be addressed at all, should be limited to gun control. i understand there are other problems in our society including lead poisoning and poverty that can contribute to crime. i think it would be best if we as a community were able to alleviate those problems, but it derails the discussion at hand. there isn't any gun control legislation that will solve all problems. criminals will be able to get guns no matter what gets passed. however, there is still a possibility that we can elect leaders to pass legislation that will help at least a little bit. saying we should entirely drop gun control as a topic due to the fact lead poisoning is still a problem takes away the opportunity to pass legislation that could help a little bit.
i did not see video games mentioned on the list of 23 orders i read.
Paradox, the budget deficit is on no ones minds, its just FOX news that makes you think so. By saying that emotions have no place in politics, you have just proven yourself to be a money grubbing soulless shit.
Again, I will not make my statements as convoluted as tammuz, because after all I am an emotional human, but I would love to hear why emotions and notions of safety have no place in politics.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/277597-obama-calls-for-cdc-to-study-whether-video-games-are-linked-to-violence-
Hi Sneaky Pete!
Maestro, not for nuthin, but pay attention; curtkram wrote "i did not see video games mentioned on the list of 23 orders i read." and he's correct.
sameolddoctor, I don't watch the Fox News because it is not a credible news source. I actually see them as an entertainment source.
Of course emotions have some place in politics but in political arguments they're not useful. Actually if you think about it we're all angry but often times people say x should be allowed or should be banned because it is how they FEEL instead of showing credible sources.
I'll ignore the rest of your rant since it looks like it was written by a 6 year old.
Here is something for you to think about though, according to this FBI data: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11
- 323 murders were committed with rifles
- 356 murders were committed with shotguns
In comparison:
- 1,694 murders were committed with knives and other cutting instruments and
- 726 murders happened with the killers' bare hands.
Also I'd like you to define what an assault weapon is. I agree it sounds so dangerous to be carried around but what exactly is an assault weapon?
i appreciate maestro's link. i was not clear on how video games were involved and that helped clear it up.
parad0xx89, i think it would be safe to assume assault weapons will be defined the same as the 1994 law. if a new bill is passed, the definition could possibly be expanded. i think bloomberg has come out against armor piercing bullets, so i would guess he would try to have certain types of ammunition included.
A 2004 Department of Justice study (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf ) says: "Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."
The term assault weapon was invented after 1989. When the legislators introduced the AWB bill in 1993 they had to define what an assault weapon was first because the machine guns were already banned. So what they called as "assault weapons" work the same way as semi-automatic weapons but in terms of appearance they look like machine guns, that is the only difference: the appearance. For example the AR-15 works the same way as a ranch rifle but it has a pistol grip and a detachable magazine that causes the weapon to look scary.
According to Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act many guns that Americans possess today, the semi-automatic guns are classified as "assault weapons". They fire one round each time the trigger is pulled, they are actually the modern day muskets. Rifles and shotguns are also included in this. Machine guns have already been banned since 1986. The term assault weapon is being broadened to increase gun control. Now you admitted that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon", there are only semi-automatic weapons that are used by millions of law abiding Americans and you want to take them all away.
i think the current push for new firearm regulation is intended to address the mass shooting events like sandy hook, the aurora theater, gabby giffords, etc. the targets in these events are typically random. while in the case of gabby giffords or Accent Signage Systems and similar events there was an initial target or event but the gunman was shooting random bystanders for no reason. the pdf report you linked was written in 2004, so it was not able to consider these events.
the assault weapon ban did not ban all semi-automatic weapons. i think the really useful part was limiting a clip to 10 rounds. that is helpful because it ultimately reduces the rate of fire. it won't stop people from shooting each other or anything, but if someone is going to walk into a school or a theater and start shooting everyone they see anyway, reducing the rate of fire can help reduce the amount of damage inflicted.
the usefulness of an ar-15 is really limited to the gun owner thinking they're cool (imho, there are of course some motivations i have not been exposed to). if there is a practical necessity for owning a firearm, there is probably a better model more suited to your purpose. letting people stockpile guns because they want to pretend they're in the military, or a paramilitary organization, or a well regulated militia, when in fact they're not in any of those things, kind of feels unsafe to me.
Well guns are just kept for safety. But there should be places where it shouldnt be aloowed to carry
This is a gun free zone. criminals and maniacs please do not carry a gun in this zone...yeah that makes sense.
letting people stockpile guns because they want to pretend they're in the military, or a paramilitary organization, or a well regulated militia, when in fact they're not in any of those things, kind of feels unsafe to me.
letting people? isn't this supposed to be a democracy? you know that thing we kill people to preserve in other countries
Yes - this is a democracy. And, in a democracy the views of the majority should prevail over time.
Let's look at some numbers. The NRA has somewhere between 3.1 and 4.0 million members. There are approximately 90 million gun owners in the US, of which not all embrace the NRA's views. That leaves like what - 221 million people who don't own guns and who don't see the need to be armed to the teeth.
Why is the NRA and a relatively small proportion of the gun toting public driving this debate and scaring the s**t out of our elected representatives? It's time for more sensible heads to prevail. It's time for more sensible heads to make the Congress concerned about THEIR views.
Have you written your representatives in the Congress today? I have.
democracy just means we vote to elect people to government. being free is a different thing. we can and often do elect people to limit our freedom (that can be called 'consent of the governed'). and we obviously have limitations on freedom, such as we are not allowed to kill each other for no reason or steal from each other. we are also not allowed to own fully automatic weapons. there is already a line there, this is a question of where we want that line. differing opinions certainly exist and they are welcome to the discussion. i just think you sound like you're drawing an ideological line rather than a practical one.
of course if you think people should be allowed to own any weapon they want, your opinion is just as valid as mine. i think it's not worth the risk associated with how many people a crazy person can kill when shooting up a public venue.
Jeepers, paradox, way to cherry pick your data! That link you posted shows that all firearms account for almost 70% of all murders. Am I wrong that handgun purchases will also be subject to background checks under this proposal?
Donna, the purpose I showed the data was to show that assault weapons cause 0.6% of the total murders.
"Am I wrong that handgun purchases will also be subject to background checks under this proposal?"
They can do all the background checks as they like. Sandy Hook killer got the gun from his mom who went through a background check.
Meanwhile I hear crickets chirping when it comes to the Big Pharma who makes money by giving antidepressant and other drugs to kids and spends that money on Washington bribing the politicians. How much do you think the pharmaceutical industry bribe the politicians to be kept out of the shooting stories.
Sooo much hipocracy it makes me sick. The same shit head elite politicians that support the murderous regime israel bombing the gaza strip people and killing countless kids, the same assholes that got us into iraq are telling the american people that we are the problem and that we should disarm law abiding citizens to reduce violence. All I'm saying is that if the so called "leaders" want to be taken seriously they should lead by example and denounce all violence even when it concerns "brown people" from far away places...Imo kids are kids...and killing is unexceptable.
i just think you sound like you're drawing an ideological line rather than a practical one.
It is a completely practical to understand that prohibition of anything always creates an underground market. It is also completely logical to assume that criminals are not concerned with gun laws. I think the majority of the people out there that support the gun ban in NY are dillusional. They are looking for a solution to a problem that cannot be solved with a law. This problem can only be solved with a complete cultural revolution. A cultural movement that favors people over things, community over individualism, family over success, true moral awareness over shallow religious rhetoric.......This is how we solve the violence problem (along with better mental health availability, and education) Simple solutions are being proposed because our politicians are simple minded people who are trying to appeal to other simple minded people so that they can get votes. We need to engage experts on sociology, psychology, anthropology, and stop looking to these greasy business men for solutions. If you want to understand the root cause of a drug epidemic you first look at the family structure, then the community, then the overall culture of the times........Banning drugs and trying to police the problem is not only ineffective, but also dangerous because it creates a false sense of "doing something" and allows the real deeper social problems to persist. Same mentality that is associated with green washing, in that it allows people to feel good about their lifestyle while ignoring the real devestation being cause by their way of life..... Preserving our liberties is the most important thing that we can do, and yes, I understand that these liberties can be dangerous in the hands of a mentally and socially broken society, however we should never take the easy way out and limit liberty, but rather we should work to fix the social decay in order to preserve both our social order and our humanity.
jla-x, you misunderstand why these folks are pushing so hard for these gun laws (and why they were so thoroughly pre-prepared and ready to pounce as soon as a mass-shooting tragedy presented itself). It isn't because they will do anything about crime (they won't). It's also not about democracy, because they can't get what they want through democratic means and are forced to resort to things like issuing a flurry of executive orders. It's not about making society safer, because they aren't interested in talking about anything that might actually have a chance of achieving that in reality.
It's about social control and undermining their hated class enemies (mostly: white proles and rural hicks, who are big gun nuts but also quite law-abiding as a general rule) in favor of their own high-low coalition (the low part of that coalition being the primary source of the problem they're in such a bother about...now isn't THAT convenient). It's a status game. They're not interested in civilization, community, peace, and order. They are interested in power. That alone explains why they insist so strongly on all these rules applying to everyone except themselves. Once you understand that, the scales will fall from your eyes.
I get that...but we "the people" are concerned with the violence problem. What I'm saying is that we need to stop looking to these puppets for solutions. Yes, the NDAA act, this gun ban, etc....are all means to maintain power and control. They see some problems on the horizon that are going to threaten their ability to maintain control, and they are laying the groundwork before it's too late. dollar collapse? ww3? peak oil? Everything is planned and strategic and nothing is ever about what they present it as. By the people looking to these assholes for "solutions" we just feed that power lust. "Please control us....we need you.."
Another myth being propigated by the media is that the "white proles and rural hicks, who are big gun nuts" are leading this resistance. I know many NYers from many ethnicities that are very libertarian minded people. Judging by my facebook page....I would say that 50% of my friends have been pretty vocal about this ban. At least 50% of them are non-white. The media likes to make this into a class/race/right/left issue but it is really not. Most people are in the middle and hate limitations on liberty. There are alot of people I know, including a black cop, who is very against this ban for both practical and ideological reasons....
jla, i'll concede that isn't necessarily an ideological post and your opposition to gun control comes from the cost of sacrificing liberties being too high for any benefits from further gun control legislation (being that you believe there are no benefits to such legislation). would you also be proponent of relaxing the existing legislation, like making fully automatic weapons available, or something like that? or is your position that the line is fine where it's at? also, it sounds like you do support some of obama's recommendations for education and research into the causes of gun violence as well as making mental health treatment more widely available through obamacare? perhaps you are only opposed to some parts of the recommendations that go too far rather than opposing everything obama suggests because you don't like democrats?
gwharton, i think people like obama are upset that a lot of kids died in an elementary school shooting and alot of other innocent people have died because of similar mass shootings in the past few years. it's kind of hard to explain to a sociopath why someone would be upset by that, but i assure you there is not a conspiracy theory about recommending gun control legislation. if, for example, the assault weapon ban was renewed, or stricter background checks on legitimate firearm purchases, then democrats and republicans would be held to the same laws. those proposals don't favor poor minorities in urban settings over poor white people in rural settings.
jla-x what you just mentioned is not the notion I get from organized pro-gun lobby.
NRA threatens to sue Tucson over wanting to destroy turned in guns
They come across as batshit insane. I don't think often about guns. Just not my thing. But other people (it seems) think about guns every single day of their lives. And then when you hear a story, they just come across as completely insane.
that you and gwharton (and others of course) can spin together an entire sociology manifesto based off a simple statement ("I like guns") is totally nuts to me.
" it's kind of hard to explain to a sociopath why someone would be upset by that, but i assure you there is not a conspiracy theory about recommending gun control legislation. "
oh snap!
curtkram, Obama's ability to convince a lot of people that he's sincere about "doing something" is why he's President (well...one of the reasons - racial catharsis is the other). He may even really be sincere. He has been characterized by people who should know as "the world's leading Ecumenical Protestant" and he really seems to believe what he says about all this stuff. It's hard to tell, because whether he's sincere or not ("If you can fake sincerity, you've got it made"), it consistently gains him and his supporters power regardless of how well any of it makes sense or actually works. That's the first clue to what's really being pursued here.
Obama and his cronies are long-time students of the ideology of power, which in its modern incarnation as Modern Universalism via the hybridization of liberal Ecumenical Protestantism and Post-modernist Marxism, has become the regnant orthodoxy of our society and age. That orthodoxy is not specific to either political faction in our system. It dominates both of them entirely, though with differing emphasis and effectiveness (the Democrats much more consistent about it, and thus running circles around their opponents for the better part of a hundred years).
The Overton Window is continuously and monotonically shifting in the direction they want it to. It has been for a very, very long time. That should be another clue as to what's really going on here.
Rusty...
"Obama and his cronies are long-time students of the ideology of power, which in its modern incarnation as Modern Universalism via the hybridization of liberal Ecumenical Protestantism and Post-modernist Marxism"
Yup. You are definitively insane. And have a gun. Great.
paradox, when I was in grad school I could walk into Meier at 2am and buy a bottle of vodka, a gun, and a box of ammunition and walk right out into the night with them. I don't give a damn what kind of firearm it is, limiting that kind of access to them can't possibly *not* produce a drop in gun murders.
paradox, it is okay if you call me a kid. Especially when it seems like kids in this country have more insight into these matters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52n-8FCBe-4&noredirect=1
"I'll ignore the rest of your rant since it looks like it was written by a 6 year old."
does not = you're a kid. See my exchange with tammuz above. Apparently some people on this site need grammar lessons..
Donna, The Clinton ban on assault weapons did noting to stop gun violence. Connecticut has one of the toughest gun laws in the country right behind NY and NJ. That being said I support background checks for all individuals who want to acquire firearms.
jla, i'll concede that isn't necessarily an ideological post and your opposition to gun control comes from the cost of sacrificing liberties being too high for any benefits from further gun control legislation (being that you believe there are no benefits to such legislation). would you also be proponent of relaxing the existing legislation, like making fully automatic weapons available, or something like that? or is your position that the line is fine where it's at? also, it sounds like you do support some of obama's recommendations for education and research into the causes of gun violence as well as making mental health treatment more widely available through obamacare? perhaps you are only opposed to some parts of the recommendations that go too far rather than opposing everything obama suggests because you don't like democrats?
I do support many of obama's ideas. I am not a conservative and have never voted republican in my entire life. I do disagree with obama on many issues, especially the ndaa act, his on-going support of the military industrial complex, his corporate bailouts, his support of the fascist federal reserve.....but I voted for obama because on one hand there was no other choice, and on the other, I feel that he really does care about people, and I do feel that at times he supports more liberty (like gay marriage) Neo-cons are not for more liberty. They are only for their own liberties and those that benefit their donors. I agree with ron paul about 60% of the time, Obama about 40%......I'm a libratarian leaning moderate I guess.
I support universal healthcare, obama care is too corporate friendly imo but better than nothing I guess. I do support many social programs that are beneficial to society as well. I am with him on education, the slight tax increases on the rich, the dams and bridges, etc... These things do not limit our liberty or our freedom in any way. They do not affect the meaning or the integrity of the constitution or our civil liberties. I will never support facist banking bailouts no matter what the consequences may be, nor will I ever support anything that limits our civil liberty or power balance with the gov't like this gun control bill.... I am opposed to this ban for both ideological and practical reasons.
As for fully automatic weapons, atom bombs, tanks, F-16's......No we have to draw the line somewhere and I do not think that we need to make machine guns legal. Recent history has shown that rifles are sufficient tools for resistance. I'm 99% certain that we will never need to revolt, I'm less certain about my kids generation, and much less certain about my future grandkids generation......So the real issue for me is about the preservation of a free society for future generations.
They come across as batshit insane. I don't think often about guns. Just not my thing. But other people (it seems) think about guns every single day of their lives. And then when you hear a story, they just come across as completely insane.
that you and gwharton (and others of course) can spin together an entire sociology manifesto based off a simple statement ("I like guns") is totally nuts to me.
Rusty, you are misunderstanding my position. I do not like or own guns. I don't like the NRA or any other lobby. I hate violence too. I don't even kill bugs. However I do support the 2nd amendment because I feel that it is necessary to maintain a power balance in society. My support of the 2nd amendment may contradict my hate for violence, however I also hate racism, but would support the 1st amendment rights of a racist. It is a constitutional issue for me not a love for guns...
bit off topic, but your "Ecumenical Protestant" notion made me pause a minute. how can obama be both an Ecumenical Protestant and a muslim at the same time?
also, i enjoyed your yoda picture.
Obama Sr. may have been muslim, and Soetoro might have been, but Obama Jr. is pure Ecumenical Protestant all the way. That's how his mother and (especially) grandparents raised him, and pretty much every single thing that comes out of his mouth confirms that.
You may find this link interesting. It's an interview with Prof. David Hollinger at Berkeley (and President of the Organization of American Historians) about the success of Ecumenical Protestantism in dominating our culture and policy institutions in the late 20th century.
http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-06/culture-changers
Hollinger, whose research specialty is American intellectual history, has written extensively on this subject. He notes that the primary ideological conflict in the United States today is fundamentally religious rather than purely political: Ecumenism vs. Evangelicalism in an Anglo-American Protestant context. Ecumenism won most of the battles in that conflict pretty decisively, starting back in the 1940s, but in the process mutated away from its religious roots into something much more secular. Evangelicalism has remained more overtly religious. In rough terms, the current partisan schism between Blue/Democrat and Red/Republican follows the Ecumenical/Evangelical split quite closely in many cases.
The secularization of Ecumenical Protestantism coincided with the decline of the mainline churches themselves, but also with the hybridization of that worldview with post-modern Marxism (then on the run from its historical associations with Communism and retrenching as a cultural movement) plus the tremendous success of the implementation of its policy programs and assumption of secular power in the United States post-WW2.
Who fucking knew I'd side with Scalia, but his thoroughness in Heller, although at times difficult to read, does manage to get the point across.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
I do not like or own guns. I don't like the NRA or any other lobby. I hate violence too. I don't even kill bugs. However I do support the 2nd amendment because I feel that it is necessary to maintain a power balance in society. My support of the 2nd amendment may contradict my hate for violence, however I also hate racism, but would support the 1st amendment rights of a racist. It is a constitutional issue for me not a love for guns...
straight from the tea party.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.